"Hi""- IK " yur-pini'iiiiiiii
8The Daily Tar HeelFriday, February 5, 1988
latlu
Ofar Heel
95 th year of editorial freedom
Jill Gerber, Editor
Amy Hamilton, Managing Editor
SALLY PEARSALL, News Editor
KRISTEN GARDNER, University Editor
KlMBERLY EDENS, University Editor
SHARON KEBSCHULL, State and National Editor
LEIGH ANN McDONALD, City Editor
MIKE BERARDINO, Sports Editor
FELISA NEURINGER, Business Editor
HANNAH DRUM, Features Editor
Elizabeth Ellen, Arts Editor
Charlotte Cannon, Photography Editor
CATHY McHUGH, Omnibus Editor
A campus, not a playground
board
opinion
The fifth- -graders
are back.
Every year at
this time, some
UNC students are
afflicted with a strange disease known
in some circles as behaviorus imma
turus. These sick undergrads slowly
regress in age, moving back through
high school, back through puberty, all
the way to the days of recess and naps.
And all because of a few campaign
posters. Posters which are torn down
or defaced for no other reason than
good old malice, with a healthy dose
of cowardice thrown in.
Why do normally rational college
students suddenly act like playground
bullies? A few plausible answers:
a UI got a little drunk and a little
rowdy." Why not just take out aggres
sion by banging your head against a
wall? That way, it's your face that's
ruined.
b "I don't like the candidate." He
probably doesn't like you, either. But
he'd have the guts to debate the issues
with you, instead of finding your old
yearbook photo and tearing it up.
a "I want my friend, Joe Studbod
pres, to win." Have enough faith in
your friend to believe he can win
without your guerrilla tactics. If he
thinks the only way he can get elected
is to have you tear down the oppo
sition, then he isn't smart or confident
enough to hold office, anyway.
Tampering with a candidate's poster
is a violation of the student code, but
it's more than that. Such vandalism
is gutless, cowardly, malicious, spite
ful, immature and plain stupid. On a
political level, trashing posters violates
the principles of democracy and
smacks of censorship.
On an economic level, it is theft. The
candidates own those posters they
and their supporters bought them with
private funds. Ripping down a can
didate's posters is the same thing as
ripping up his money.
Most of the candidates this year
have had some of their posters defaced
or removed. The tragedy is that each
candidate has a spending limit lost
posters are irreplaceable dollars.
Keith Poston, student body presi
dent candidate, on Thursday asked the
Elections Board for additional funds
to replace his destroyed posters, but
was turned down. It is unfortunate that
his money has been lost. However, the
board cannot feasibly replace cam
paign funds the logistics of figuring
how many of whose posters have been
ripped down at what expense would
be impossible.
And it is not the responsibility of
the board to compensate for the
vandals' malice. That responsibility
lies solely with the vandals themselves,
whose juvenile tactics will only disap
pear when they grow up.
The river of their discontent
Members of the Zeb Vance Memor
ial Debating Society of Asheville
recently devoted an entire meeting to
a controversial issue facing their
neighbors in Canton.
The issue deserved their attention.
Located in the western mountains near
Tennessee, Canton is home to the 70-year-old
Champion Paper Mill,
located on the banks of the Pigeon
River. The river, which flows through
Canton into Newport, Tenn., on its
way to the Mississippi, picks up extra
baggage along the way. Champion
Paper dumps gallons of blackish,
murky waste into the tributary every
night.
The river turns the color of black
coffee, and a froth forms on the water
around the plant. Newport residents
are disgusted by the river's condition,
and deserve to have the pollution
stopped. Not only is the water
unsightly, river life is suffering. The
only fish that habitate these waters are
bottom dwellers such as carp. Even
if someone is lucky enough to catch
a fish, it's inedible and must be thrown
back. For people in the mountains
who enjoy hunting and fishing, the
situation is unacceptable.
In Canton, where it's rumored that
the contaminated water cures poison
ivy, residents are bitter about New
port's complaints. They have become
accustomed to having a ready source
of income in their back yard. Many
people go to work at the plant right
after high school, as their fathers and
grandfathers have done. Champion
Paper employs most of the town, and
the laborers fear that a plant closing
would irreparably damage the town's
economy.
Champion officials say that if they
had it to do over, they never would
have put the mill on the river. Seventy
years ago, nobody realized that the
Pigeon wouldn't carry enough water
or move quickly enough to dilute the
waste before it reaches Tennessee.
Now, it's too late to worry about poor
planning.
Instead, Canton should develop a
tourism industry. The town is located
in a valley deep in the Blue Ridge
Mountains and could attract many
vacationers. Obviously, this would
take time, and generations of plant
workers are understandably reluctant
to give up their economic security.
While Canton gains revenue as its
paper mill continues to destroy the
river, the people of Newport suffer.
A town in a different state that receives
no economic benefit from Champion
Paper should not be subjected to the
company's environmental abuse.
Laura Pearlman
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: Matt Bivens, Brian McCuskey, Laura Pearlman and James Surowiecki.
Editorial Assistants: Gary Greene, David Lagos and Mark Leeper.
Assistant Managing Editors: Cara Bonnett, Teresa Kriegsman and Mandy Spence.
Layout Assistants: Ashley Campbell, Katherine Hortenstine, Peter Lineberry, Laura Ross and Amy Weisner.
News: Kari Barlow, Jeanna Baxter, Crystal Bell, Laura Bennett, Lydian Bernhardt, Patricia Brown, Brenda Campbell,
Lacy Churchill, Jenny Cloninger, Staci Cox, Robin Curtis, Laura DiGiano, Carrie Dove, Laura Francis, Amy Grubbs,
Lindsay Hayes, William Hildebolt, Kyle Hudson, Helen Jones, Susan Kauffman, Will Lingo, Barbara Linn, Steve
Long, Lynne McClintock, Brian McCollum, Myrna Miller, Rebecca Nesbit, Helle Nielsen, Susan Odenkirchen, Laura
Peay, Cheryl Pond, Amy Powell, Beth Rhea, Becky Riddick, Mark Shaver, Mandy Spence, Christopher Sontchi,
Laura Summer, William Taggart, Clay Thorp, Amy Weisner, Jackie Williams and Amy Winslow. Mark Folk and
Justin McGuire, senior writers. Juliellen Sarver, wire editor. Brian Long, assistant business editor.
Sports: Chris Spencer and Jim Muse, assistant sports editors. James Surowiecki, senior writer. Robert D'Arruda,
Steve Giles, Dave Glenn, Dave Hall, Clay Hodges, Ginger Jonas, Brendan Mathews, Patton McDowell, Keith Parsons,
Andy Podolsky and Langston Wertz.
Features: Jo Lee Credle, Grier Harris, Jim Mock, Corin Ortlam, Leigh Pressley, Carole Southern, Ellen Thornton,
Laura van den Berg, Julie Woods and Holly Young.
Arts: James Burrus, senior writer. Scott Cowen, Stephanie Dean, Kim Donehower, David Hester, Julie Olson, Kelly
Rhodes, Alston Russell, Richard Smith and Michael Spinas.
Photography: Christie Blom, Tony Deifell, Janet Jarman, David Minton, Elizabeth Morrah and Julie Stovall.
Copy Editors: Karen Bell and Kaarin Tisue, assistant news editors. Cara Bonnett, Carrie Burgin, Julia Coon, Whitney
Cork, Bert Hackney and Sherry Miller.
Cartoonists: Jeff Christian and Greg Humphreys.
Campus Calendar: Mindelle Rosenberg and David Starnes.
Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Patricia Glance, advertising director; Joan Worth, advertising
coordinator; Peggy Smith, advertising manager; Sheila Baker, business manager; Michael Benfield, Lisa Chorebanian,
Ashley Hinton, Kellie McElhaney, Chrissy Mennitt, Stacey Montford, Lesley Renwrick, Julie Settle, Dave Slovensky,
Dean Thompson, Amanda Tilley and Wendy Wegner, advertising representatives; Stephanie Chesson, classified
advertising representative; and Kris Carlson, secretary.
Subscriptions: Tucker Stevens, manager.
Distribution: David Econopouly, manager; Billy Owens, assistant.
Production: Bill Leslie and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway, Leslie Humphrey, Stephanie Locklear and Tammy Sheldon,
production assistants.
Printing: The Chapel Hill Newspaper.
Readers' Foryomi
FLO recognition key to regional peace
To the editor:
I would like to respond to Michael
Schmier's letter ("Keep problem in pers
pective, Jan. 27) on the proposal ol u.a.
and Israeli recognition of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO). Several
issues were raised in this letter which I feel
I must address.
First, I wholeheartedly agree with
Schmier that we should "all read our
history books" to avoid "looking at the
present without remembering the past."
Unfortunately, Schmier's idea of the past
seems to begin in 1967, and even then" his
historical assertions are largely fallacious.
The 1967 War, for example, did not begin
after invasion by the Arabs; rather, it began
with Israel's launching of a pre-emptive air
strike, effectively crippling the Syrian and
Egyptian air forces. As a result of the rapid
Israeli victory in that war, the West Bank
and Gaza have remained under Israeli
military occupation. Consequently, the
Palestinian people remain a nation without
a state, and those Palestinian youths who
have chosen to vent their anger and
frustration in recent weeks have lived their
entire lives as refugees under military
occupation and in abject poverty.
Schmier's assertion that the PLO was
not leading the rioting is testimony to the
spontaneity and authenticity of these
demonstrations in response to oppressive
conditions. Yet it would be incorrect to
assume from this that the youths involved
do not support the PLO. It is well known
that the great majority of Palestinians in
the West Bank and Gaza do indeed support
Yassir Arafat and the PLO (much to the
chagrin of both Israel and Jordan's King
Hussein).
It is not for Israel, the United States,
the Soviet Union, or even any Arab state
to say who will represent the Palestinians.
They alone must decide, and their will has
repeatedly been made clear the PLO
must be recognized as the sole legitimate
representative of the Palestinian people.
Israeli refusal to do this follows Schmier's
reasoning that "we shouldn't support
terrorists." This objection to the PLO
somehow loses its moral credibility when
uttered by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak
Shamir, a former member of the Irgun,
a terrorist organization responsible for
killing British soldiers and civilians, among
others. This is not in any way to justify
terrorism, yet we do need to keep in mind
that acts of terrorism and violence have
been perpetrated by all sides in this conflict.
If Israel had any chance of negotiating
with any other Palestinian leadership, this
has been erased by the deportations and
arrests of prominent Palestinian lawyers,
newspaper editors, university professors,
and, in short, the positions which might
have provided an alternative leadership.
The objective reality remains, then, that
the majority of the residents of the West
Bank and Gaza support the PLO. The
argument for PLO recognition is an
argument for the recognition of the realities
and necessities of international politics.
Israel has a right to exist, and its strategic
concerns about the occupied territories are
understandable. Yet the Palestinians have
their right to self-determination as well,
and this can be achieved without sacrificing
Israeli security. The Israelis argue that they
need the territories as security zones, as
they had previously argued in regard to
Sinai. Yet Israel and Egypt's mutual
recognition and negotiated settlement,
culminating in the return of Sinai to Egypt,
resulted in greater stability and security on
the Israeli-Egyptian border. This can be
achieved in the remaining occupied
territories as well. The only hope for Israel,
the Palestinians, and the Arab states lies
in mutual recognition and negotiation.
Yassir Arafat has offered to recognize
Israel in a proposed international confer
ence on the Middle East.
Israel has a chance to grasp at the
beginnings of a peace process for the long
term. It will destroy this chance if it
continues to search for short-term, hard
line solutions through deportations,
military occupation and violent repression
of a people's desire to be free.
CURTIS RYAN
Graduate
Political Science
Approach issue
realistically
To the editor:
In his letter "Euthanasia
legally, ethically unrealistic"
(Feb. 1), Peter Doyle rightly
points out that there are laws
against euthanasia in all 50
states, and he is also correct to
claim that it would put a great
burden on our legal system to
change those laws. But this is
not a good argument against
legalizing "active" euthanasia.
Consider the argument some
one could have made against
changing slavery laws in the
1850s: There are laws that
support slavery in many states;
it would burden the courts to
change those laws; hence, we
should keep our slavery laws.
But slavery is wrong, and it
should not have been legal;
hence, the argument about the
"burdens on the courts" is
irrelevant. The same conclu
sions hold for euthanasia. If
euthanasia is permissible, or
even required in some cases,
then it doesn't matter if it is
illegal in 50 states.
Doyle argues that pain is not
a good reason for wanting to
die, since pain can be treated.
According to Doyle, "I suggest
that if a person's pain is not
being relieved adequately, that
person seek an alternative
health-care giver to change
medication or alter dosage."
Doyle fails to acknowledge the
fact that many patients suffer
terrible pain despite the best
treatment possible.
Doyle also argues that doc
tors should not be burdened
with assisting patients in a
suicide. This kind of argument
is also flawed. First, it might
be less of a burden in some
cases to assist in euthanasia
than to treat a slowly dying
patient. Second, even if it is a
burden, if it turns out to be the
correct action to take, then
physicians should be willing to
take it. Physicians have an
obligation to do their best to
take care of their patients. If
it turns out that it is in the best
interests of a patient to die in
a certain case, then it should
not be unreasonable for a
physician to aid in death.
There are many sides to the
euthanasia question. I do not
pretend to have resolved any
thing with this letter. But
neither did Doyle with his
letter. I respect his views but
object to some of his
arguments.
DAVID RESNIK
Graduate
Philosophy
Poston has
wide agenda
To the editor:
After reading Christopher
Locklear's letter on Monday
("Student leaders must lead,"
Feb. 1), I was compelled to
write a response. Locklear's
comments on Keith Poston
showed a total lack of thought.
He tried to discredit Poston's
campaign for student body
president because Poston has
said he will try to defund the
Carolina Gay and Lesbian
Association.
Locklear writes, "Poston,
don't you think that the stu
dents of this university are
concerned with more impor
tant issues such as minority
enrollment and retention, con
tinuance of financial aid and
student parking?" These are
issues which all candidates
running for SBP (Poston being
no exception) have included in
their platforms. But it is Pos
ton's stand on the CGLA that
sets him apart from other
candidates. Furthermore,
Locklear obviously is out of
touch with the students on this
campus. The question of
CGLA funding is very impor
tant to students. This is an
undisputed fact, proven by the
ease with which 2,500 signa
tures were collected to put the
issue of CGLA funding on a
referendum.
While all the other candi
dates basically have the same
platform, Keith is willing to go
out on a limb and represent the
true attitude of the majority of
students on this campus. Like
other candidates, Poston is
interested in making Student
Government more effective and
in increasing communication.
But while other candidates
merely talk about representing
the students, he has already
shown that he is willing to back
up his promises with action.
Poston's statement that he will
do anything within his power
to defund the CGLA is any
thing but a "narrow-minded
platform," as Locklear would
have us believe.
DAVID LUTZ
Sophomore
Mathematical Science
BILL TAYLOR
Junior
Political Science
We goofed Letters policy
Monday's editorial "Not
such a great place to start"
incorrectly said that Air Force
ROTC scholarships pay for
room and board. They pay
only for tuition, books and lab
fees. Also, the Air Force may
break its contracts with ROTC
members at any time if it is
in its best interest to do so. The
Daily Tar Heel regrets the
errors.
B All letters and columns
must be signed by the author,
with a limit of two signatures
per letter or column.
B When submitting letters or
columns, students should
include the following: name,
year in school, major, phone
number and the date
submitted. Other members of
the University community
should give similar
information.
University stalls on parking issue
The news that parking fees might rise
by as much as $125 per year to pay
for the new parking deck comes as
no surprise, given the University's history
in these matters. However, before they
submit to any new fees, employees and
students should demand that the Univer
sity respond to the following questions:
B If employees are to be expected to pay
for this new deck through their permit fees,
why was it placed inconveniently for
employees coming to work, but conve
niently for sporting events?
B Why have University administrators
told employees that they are prohibited
from using state funds to build parking
facilities when just the opposite is true? The
University has passed the blame on to the
legislature for years, but it turns out that
the only reason employees and students
have been expected to foot the bill is that
the University has chosen to make them
pay.
B How can the University even consider
such an increase in parking fees when
lower-paid employees still do not make
enough money to keep themselves out of
Peter Schledorn
Guest Writer
poverty? Many University employees
cannot even afford to buy health insurance
coverage for their dependents how are
they to be expected to pay an annual
parking bill that could be larger than their
biweekly paycheck?
B Why has the administration already
chosen to eliminate parking from the
central areas of the campus and rely on
fringe lots exclusively, thus adding the
better part of an hour to every employee's
workday? Why was this decision taken
without even consulting University
employees?
B Why have University officials claimed
they are not creating a system in which
only favored groups are given parking
permits, when trends make it clear that
soon only senior faculty and administra
tors will be able to afford University
parking facilities?
B Why does an institution that already
suffers from ruinous turnover levels give
employees such an inducement to leave?
The parking situation has turned into
a parking crisis simply because the
administration has chosen to ignore the
needs and concerns of a large portion of
the University community. Officials have
gone on and on about "hard choices" and
"limited options" on parking and transpor
tation issues, but they have failed to take
even basic steps to improve the situation.
Any new fees will make a bad situation
even worse, and quotes from officials give
the impression that they are a foregone
conclusion. Just as it did during the clerical
pay crisis of last summer, the University
is creating an atmosphere of distrust and
dissatisfaction that will haunt it for a long
time to come.
Peter Schledorn is a library technical
assistant for the Collection Development
Department of Davis Library.